4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Novovoronezh, the Voronezh Region.
5.  He sued the authorities for recovery of a number of unpaid social benefits due to him, being a victim of the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
6.  On 27 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) allowed the applicant's claim against the Social Welfare Office of Novovoronezh (“the Welfare Office”) and ordered the respondent authority to pay him 949.70 Russian roubles (RUB) in pension arrears and RUB 47.48 for court fees.
7.  On 7 November 2000 the judgment became enforceable. On 16 November 2000 the bailiff's office opened the enforcement proceedings. On 29 May 2003 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued, for the debtor's lack of funds.
8.  On 29 July 2008 the award was paid to the applicant.
9.  On 7 December 2000 the Town Court decided that the Welfare Office should pay the applicant RUB 3,593.51 as a penalty relating to certain unpaid compensation for health damage. The court further index-linked the applicant's food allowance in line with the domestic legislation and awarded him RUB 1,625.28 in this respect. On 27 February 2001 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment and it entered into force.
10.  On 26 November 2002 RUB 3,593.51 of the judgment debt was paid to the applicant. The remainder of the award was not executed.
11.  On 17 February 2003 the Presidium of Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment of 7 December 2000, as upheld on 27 February 2001, on supervisory review following the request by the respondent authority and remitted the case to the first instance. The Presidium found that the lower court had incorrectly applied domestic law in the part relating to the calculation of the penalty.
12.  On 3 April 2003 the Novovoronezh Town Court examined the case afresh. It found that the respondent authority was liable to pay the applicant the unpaid food allowance in the amount of RUB 1,625.28. It further rejected the applicant's penalty claim and ordered him to reimburse RUB 3,593.51 to the Novovoronezh Welfare Office.
13.  At some point the applicant returned to the Welfare Office RUB 3,593.51 already paid to him.
14.  On 3 June 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment. Enforcement proceedings commenced against the Welfare Office for payment of RUB 1,625.28. On 16 March 2004 the bailiffs discontinued the proceedings, because the respondent authority lacked funds for the execution of the award.
15.  According to the Government, the judgment of 3 April 2003 has not been enforced by the Welfare Office to date.
16.  The applicant brought a court action against the Welfare Office claiming compensation for belated payments in respect of his pension as a Chernobyl victim. He considered that such compensation should be in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount in the Voronezh Region.
17.  On 14 May 2001 the Town Court granted the claim and awarded the applicant RUB 605.52, to be paid by the Welfare Office.
18.  On 24 May 2001 the judgment acquired legal force.
19.  On 24 September 2003 the award was paid to the applicant.
20.  The applicant claimed recalculation of the amount of compensation for health damage due to him since 1997. He submits, without further details, that he introduced a respective action with a domestic court at some point in 1999.
21.  On 11 April 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court rejected his claim as having no basis in domestic law.
22.  On 11 May 2000 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment.
23.  At some point the applicant applied for supervisory review of the case.
24.  On 2 February 2004 the Presidium of Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgments of 11 April 2000 and 11 May 2000 by reference to the incorrect application of domestic law and remitted the case for a fresh examination by the first instance court.
25.  It appears that on 31 March 2004 the Novovoronezh Town Court stayed the proceedings, because the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was to examine the legal provisions on which the applicant's claims were based and issue a ruling on the application of those provisions by the domestic courts. The applicant challenged the stay of the proceedings. On 9 April 2004 the Town Court returned the grounds of appeal to the applicant as lodged in violation of the rules of procedure.
26.  Despite the fact that the Plenary Supreme Court had not yet decided on the matter, on 3 June 2004 the Town Court resumed the examination of the applicant's case and dismissed his claim.
27.  On 29 July 2004 the Voronezh Regional Court, however, quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination by the Town Court.
28.  It appears that on 28 September 2004 the Town Court allowed the respondent authority's request to postpone the case for an unspecified period.
29.  The applicant appealed. On 8 October 2004 the Town Court informed him that in accordance with the domestic law on civil procedure he could not challenge the decision to postpone the examination of the case and advised him that a new hearing was scheduled for 14 December 2004.
30.  On 14 December 2004 the Town Court stayed the proceedings pending the Plenary Supreme Court's ruling relevant to the dispute. The decision was upheld on 3 March 2005 by the Voronezh Regional Court.
31.  On 5 April 2005 the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted Resolution No.7 providing clarifications as regards application of various provisions of the domestic law regulating the disability payments. The Supreme Court also filed a request with the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to review the constitutionality of certain legal provisions determining the amount of compensations to Chernobyl victims (para. 18 of the Resolution).
32.  On 18 April 2005 the Town Court scheduled the hearing for 4 May 2005 and sent the summons to the applicant with a view to securing his presence. As the applicant could not appear and due to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, on 16 August 2005 the Town Court stayed the proceedings until the decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia had been rendered.
33.  On 4 October 2005 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation by Ruling № 364-O reviewed constitutionality of certain legal provisions determining the amount of compensations to Chernobyl victims.
34.  It appears that at some point the Town Court resumed the examination of the case and scheduled the hearing for 10 May 2006.
35.  On 10 May 2006 the Town Court postponed the case examination as the applicant was absent.
36.  On 24 May 2006 the Town Court again summoned the parties to a new hearing and indicated that the applicant's presence in the court room was obligatory.
37.  On 16 August 2006 the Town Court examined the applicant's action and dismissed it as having no basis in domestic law.
38.  On 19 October 2006 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
39.  On 21 July 2003 the Town Court granted the applicant's new action against the Welfare Office, recalculated the amount of the allowances in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence level in 2002-2003 and accordingly awarded the applicant a lump sum of RUB 2,653.17 in arrears relating to payments of the food allowance for the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 July 2003 and RUB 85 of unpaid yearly compensation for health damage in respect of 2002-2003.
40.  On 27 November 2003 the judgment was upheld by the Voronezh Regional Court and entered into force.
41.  On 24 April 2006 the Town Court dismissed the applicant's request for a reopening of the case in view of discovery of the new circumstances. The decision was upheld on 6 June 2006 by the Voronezh Regional Court.
42.  The judgment of 21 July 2003, as upheld on 27 November 2003, has not been enforced to date.
43.  The applicant brought a court action against the Voronezh Customs Office which refused to exempt his imported car from duties. On 22 January 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh by a final judgment dismissed his action as having no basis in domestic law.
44.  The applicant sued the Welfare Office and the Ministry of Finance for further recalculation of various allowances and recovery of the debt accrued as a result of the previous underpayment.
45.  On 18 December 2006 the Novovoronezh Town Court granted the applicant's action in part and made a pecuniary award. Alleging incorrect application of the domestic law and insufficiency of the award, the applicant appealed.
46.  On 21 August 2007 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the lower court's findings.
47.  On 15 October 2007 the Town Court, upon the applicant's request, annulled the judgment of 18 December 2006 on account of discovery of the new circumstances.
48.  On 14 December 2007 the Town Court examined the case afresh and made a new pecuniary award in the applicant's favour.
49.  On 13 March 2008 the Town Court modified the way of execution of the decision of 14 December 2007. The applicant submits that he was not notified of the hearing and was not present. He appealed against the decision.
50.  On 29 April 2008 the Regional Court upheld the lower court's findings.
51.  The case file does not contain any further information as regards the enforcement status of the judgment of 14 December 2007, as modified on 13 March 2008.